Creationism - Why? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Creationism - Why?

mikewot Avatar
9y, 6m agoPosted 9 years, 6 months ago
As the thread on Richard Dawkins book was becoming overloaded with comments about creationism and how evolution wasn't real (:roll: ) its time to start afresh in here.

To those who believe that a mythical supreme being somehow magicked the universe into being, why do you believe that?
mikewot Avatar
9y, 6m agoPosted 9 years, 6 months ago
Options

All Comments

(134) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Personally i couldnt give 2 hoops! If there was a god, why have i got gigantic boobies, when i only wanted small? :giggle:
#2
Lulu'sMammy
Personally i couldnt give 2 hoops!

Some people get quite excited about it. I'm only interested in why people can and do ignore the mass of evidence for evolution and insted believe what it says in the bible.

If there was a god, why have i got gigantic boobies, when i only wanted small? :giggle:

God didn't give you large bosoms, that was your genetic make up and possibly giving birth would have had an effect. You could have reduction surgery if its causing you a problem, size F or larger gets it done free on the NHS (I believe).
#3
ermmmmm can't evolution be proved????
I guess something must have started everything I just don't buy into all the gods (take your pick on which one) stuff. Seems to me its a bit extream to credit EVERYTHING to one being and if you follow christianity - all in one week?!? hell it took a team of builders 7 months to build my extention so a whole universe in 6 days, by one guy is a little far fetched
#4
Lol not got any children, unless i done a virgin mary and one popped out whilst i was sleeping! Only a D, but i was merely getting my point across (in a strange way) that all this God stuff is codswallop, but thats in my opinion!
#5
Lulu'sMammy
Lol not got any children, unless i done a virgin mary and one popped out whilst i was sleeping!

OIC Was basing my response on your user name and picture in your profile.
i was merely getting my point across (in a strange way) that all this God stuff is codswallop, but thats in my opinion!

Yet some people take it very seriously and I'm curious as to why. I have some suppositions (a comfort blanket is one) but I'm hoping that some of the creationists who commented in the other thread will visit here and debate.
#6
mikewot
OIC Was basing my response on your user name and picture in your profile.

Yet some people take it very seriously and I'm curious as to why. I have some suppositions (a comfort blanket is one) but I'm hoping that some of the creationists who commented in the other thread will visit here and debate.

Lol the pic in my profile is of a puppy, and thats whose mammy i am :-D. I think this thread will all kick off to be honest, some people are far too serious to be even on a forum....not you, i dont mean!
#7
jonnyq
A fair point but why should the burden of proof be on those proving God, they have enough belief and evidence (maybe not agreed by others) to satisfy. But to those who say there is no God, then they should prove it - that is a simple idea that it is the positive claim should be proved.

Even Dawkins does not claim there is no god because its impossible to prove. However the probability for one is virtually zero.

The human eye may be enough proof for some but it's pretty weak in my view. I'm still undecided in terms of God. The eye works and

If everyone was perfect then what would be the point.

The eye has developed in 12 different ways known to science. The squid has a pretty much 'perfect' eye, humans do not. This is all evidence of evolution, not creation.

My point is that if science cannot explain some things or answer some questions - should we dismiss it? Of course that doesn't mean it is a case of 'God did it' but they raise some thinking points.

When scientists cannot explain something they search a bit harder. To date I'm not aware of any explanation which can be ascribed to supernatural causation.

There are some scientists, not all, who are afraid to say what they think, they are not religious but they don't believe the theory of evolution. Horizon, I think, did a programme on this and I doubt there are many people who would risk their career for saying what they truly believe.

You need to give some references here. Google for Project Steve to debunk your assertion.

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png
#8
Lulu'sMammy
Lol the pic in my profile is of a puppy, and thats whose mammy i am :-D.


Confused? I did not mean your avatar I meant this picture http://www.hotukdeals.com/forums/image.php?u=32018&dateline=1174556770&type=profile
#9
Aw right chikkaroonie...forgot about that one i did! Niece, bless her!
#10
I've got an open mind, I'm not going to say its all rubbish but i'm not going to go to church and pray everyday either.

I'll find out and try to tell you when i'm dead, lol.
#11
jonnyq
I don't know myself but you can't say this is right and that is wrong when you don't know for sure.

In science you can state things which are facts and other people can test them.

In the end doesn't it come down to faith? Humans have to put our faith in something.

Religious faith is quite different from the general meaning of faith, which is trust. Why do you have to put your faith in something? apples fall to the ground, I don't have faith that they always will, I know that they will.
This might be faith in God or faith in science (and it being able to explain everything).

Don't need to have faith in science because there will be empirical, verifiable, falsifiable evidence.
Even if you don't believe in God - you still believe in something - the belief that there is no God. And you have evidence, explanations which prove your point.

I don't believe that there is no god because I can't prove that. I lean very heavily toward there not being any such being because all the evidence I have seen makes the need for such a being unnecessary.
BTW You're conflating atheists with those afflicted with religion. Atheists don't have belief, they're missing it. To state that atheists have belief is like stating that not collecting stamps is a hobby or that bald is a hair colour.
#12
jonnyq
Why do some atheists go to effort to disprove God? They have a strong belief they are right and others are wrong.

I'm not trying to disprove god, thats impossible. What I'm trying to dispel is the absurd notion that the universe was created by a mythical supreme being 6000 years ago.

And we are using human thought, explanation, evidence and ideas to prove something which is beyond human - can we actually prove it in human terms? So does that mean God doesn't exist?

Science has no interest in the supernatural. However if you can prove something that is supernatural the James Randi Foundation has a million dollars to give you.
[mod]#13
I'm not religous myself but i also know it brings great comfort to some in times of need so that can only be a good thing. :thumbsup:
#14
jonnyq
Why do some atheists go to effort to disprove God? They have a strong belief they are right and others are wrong.

The vast majority don't really care - I don't particularly care until people start either misrepresenting or arguing against my personal beliefs. Dawkins specifically cares because he's an evolutionary biologist, and as such his work has been attacked by religious people.

And why do some religious people go to the effort of knocking on doors, going into city centres telling people that "Jesus died for your sins" et al? Relatively speaking, atheists are relatively quiet about their lack of belief and until Dawkins I can't think of a single book that dealt with the same issues, whereas my city has a Christian bookshop(!). I've never seen someone in shopping centre going "There is no god. No-one died for your sins. Stop believing in a myth!" or something, but in the city centre there was someone with a megaphone yesterday shouting about Christianity with a megaphone.

jonnyq
And we are using human thought, explanation, evidence and ideas to prove something which is beyond human - can we actually prove it in human terms? So does that mean God doesn't exist?

Some things may be beyond human thought, but I don't think inventing an omnipotent being is the correct answer to those mysteries. I don't know for sure there's no god, but in the balance of probabilities I think there isn't and there's little-to-no real evidence to say otherwise.
#15
Syzable
I'm not religous myself but i also know it brings great comfort to some in times of need so that can only be a good thing. :thumbsup:

But what about when things are done in the name of religion, like 9/11?
[mod]#16
mikewot
But what about when things are done in the name of religion, like 9/11?


Unfortunately that is a very twisted minority. Same as everything in life like paedo's, rapists etc..
#17
jonnyq
How can you prove the supernatural if the laws of science do not allow for it to be proved?

How do "the laws of science" prevent the supernatural from being proved beyond reasonable doubt?

No reliable evidence means something can't be proved. If there's no reliable evidence for something, surely that would suggest that something can't exist or be true?

Edit: If there was reliable, irrefutable evidence of "the supernatural" or "god" or whatever, then scientists would be the first to embrace it, no matter how unlikely it it may seem.

jonnyq

And that isn't the point. I meant you try explaining how God and the things which we see as impossible using a human mind, our laws and things that we can explain with science. But some things are way beyond our minds and rules do not and cannot apply to them.

But surely that's a cop-out? Saying "oh, we can't explain it, and we have little-to-no evidence, no way of showing it or no way of proving it, but it definitely exists and is beyond our understanding!", to me is the greatest cop-out of all, and as soon as you dismiss the scientific method and are happy believing in things without evidence, and some evidence to the contrary, you end up with no progress.
#18
Halo
How do "the laws of science" prevent the supernatural from being proved beyond reasonable doubt?

No reliable evidence means something can't be proved. If there's no reliable evidence for something, surely that would suggest that something can't exist or be true?

Edit: If there was reliable, irrefutable evidence of "the supernatural" or "god" or whatever, then scientists would be the first to embrace it, no matter how unlikely it it may seem.

You're quite correct, whomever found this supernatural stuff would awards and research funds heaped upon them. Scientists have searched for evidence of ghosts, none found, the soul, none found, for evidence that praying helps people in hospital heal quicker, uuummm unfortunately if they knew about the prayers the reverse was true.
#19
Syzable
Unfortunately that is a very twisted minority. Same as everything in life like paedo's, rapists etc..

jonnyq
I agree - this goes back to the idea of religion being the root of all evil.

Uhuh, look back at history and see just how much 'evil' was done in the name of religion. You don't have to go very far back to find examples (Nothern Ireland anyone?) and the further back you go the worse the excesses.
[mod]#20
mikewot
Uhuh, look back at history and see just how much 'evil' was done in the name of religion. You don't have to go very far back to find examples (Nothern Ireland anyone?) and the further back you go the worse the excesses.


But as long as man has been on earth, they have comitted crimes against each other and that was thousands of years before mass religion. :thumbsup:
#21
The scientific method is good for things where you gather evidence and use it to make a hypothesis which can then be tested. This turns out to represent the vast majority of things in the world, particularly in the modern world of computers.

Psychology isn't a pseudo-science, but is a developing science where not all parts of it are accepted and we are limitied in our understanding. There are psychological experiments, for example, and a few of them are very famous (eg. Milgram Obedience Test), and statistics based on surveys et al. It is one of the more difficult things to test, since you can only test many things abstractly due to ethics, and it relies on the far-from-complete understanding of the human mind, something that is extremely complex. No "science" has proof (except mathematics, but that isn't a science ;)), only theories which are followed by all available evidence.

Philosophy is a weird one. It's somewhere between science and an art subject. It is a pseudo-science, which by definition means "doesn't follow the scientific method", which has origins before modern science and the scientific method existed and often deals with aspects where modern psychology, mathematics and physics have since took over, and deals with trying to answer unanswerable questions, and usually just represents prevailing views in the most formal way possible by the limits of language.

That said, I think "believing in logic" is the only way to believe. How can you /not/ believe in logic and if you don't "believe in logic", what are you left to believe in? The illogical which states that the grass might not be green tomorrow, your computer shouldn't actually be working etc etc. If you can't believe in what's in front of you, which is the fundamental assumption that /everything in society in based on/, how can you believe in anything? Surely then all bets are off and you're living in a society where making even the tiniest assumptions is wrong and bad since they could be wrong tomorrow? If we lived in that world, belief in an omnipotent would probably make sense, but we don't and the world is a reliable, consistent place.
#22
jonnyq
I've read references from the Qu'ran about the big bang and other things which science have later have gone on to explain. These aren't written in a scientific way, because of the time it was written, nor are they very vague. Now, that is one example of how both science and religion overlap. Whatever your view on that, that shows how science has helped to reinforce a belief.

I'm interested in this, could you please quote the relevant passage?

Edit: I've just looked it up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Philosophical_and_religious_interpretations), and I expect this is what was being referred to:

Some modern Islamic scholars[40] believe that the Qur'an parallels the Big Bang in its account of creation, described as follows: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30). The claim has also been made that the Qur'an describes an expanding universe: "The heaven, We have built it with power. And verily, We are expanding it." (Ch:51,Ver:47).[41] Parallels with the Big Crunch and an oscillating universe have also been suggested: "On the day when We will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about." (Ch:21,Ver:104).


In my opinion that's rather a stretch of the imagination. If they had knowledge of the big bang, why should their writings be so incredibly vague and unscientific? We're talking about a supposed god here - this description should have been 100% accurate. The big crunch does not fit in with current theory either so it's wrong there anyway.
#23
jonnyq
A fair point but why should the burden of proof be on those proving God, they have enough belief and evidence (maybe not agreed by others) to satisfy.

The burden of proof lies with people who make fantastical claims for which there is no credible or reliable evidence. If I stated that I had a conversation with aliens, I would need to provide proof or else face mockery from many atheists and theists (double standards?) alike.

When you say evidence for god is not agreed by others, I think you mean that the evidence is considered poor by non believers. And remember ALL religious people are atheist about thousands of other gods, therefore most religions/gods ARE, by the admission of most theists, wrong. So, if a Christian had evidence for religion, he would also have to argue that the evidence only proved Christianity and not many religions simultaneously.

But to those who say there is no God, then they should prove it - that is a simple idea that it is the positive claim should be proved.

Proving that there is no god would be proving a negative, I agree that those asserting the positive claim: that there is a god, should provide evidence.


If everyone was perfect then what would be the point.

What's the point of childhood leukaemia or HIV?


For every 'weakness' there are examples of how the human body is amazing...

There are aspects of the human body, such as toenails, the appendix, the tail bone at the base of the spine that point towards evolution: feet were once hands, diets used to be very different, our distant ancestors had tails. All of these and more examples of vestigiality (body hair, ear muscles, etc.) are difficult conundrums for theists who believe in creationism. You also forget that most gods are claimed to be perfect, so why would they make mistakes or create redundant aspects, think of all the time and money people waste just dealing with hair?

Also why should Abrahamic creationism carry any more weight then say ancient Babylonian/Roman/Greek creation stories?

The big bang example shows how it is a difficult explanation and science perhaps can never be complete

Can you elaborate on this point, you've mentioned the big bang twice now, but have not made it clear exactly why you bring it up?


there are some things which do not fit into the scientific terms of evidence - so are dismissed.

Think of it in terms of a court case, in order to convict someone you have to provide evidence that they committed a crime. It is not permissible to say that he's guilty because you have faith that he is or that he looks like a criminal, you would be (rightly) laughed out of the court room.


There is work being done to try and find out the origins of the universe. My point is that if science cannot explain some things or answer some questions - should we dismiss it? Of course that doesn't mean it is a case of 'God did it' but they raise some thinking points.

Science is ALWAYS work in progress, do you give up soon after you've tried some thing? Benefits of science are visible all around, the computer you're typing on, cancer treatments, for instance, science works consistently, faith definitely doesn't.
#24
jonnyq
How can you prove the supernatural if the laws of science do not allow for it to be proved?

And that isn't the point. I meant you try explaining how God and the things which we see as impossible using a human mind, our laws and things that we can explain with science. But some things are way beyond our minds and rules do not and cannot apply to them.


You can say that about anything, magic, harry potter, wizards, gandalf, fairies, santa, flying unicorns, anything you're imagination can think up. It sounds awfully naive to me.
#25
Syzable
But as long as man has been on earth, they have comitted crimes against each other and that was thousands of years before mass religion. :thumbsup:


Yes, but as a wise man once said, (paraphrase) it takes religion to make good men do evil. ;)
#26
jonnyq

Now this doesn't mean that 'God created it' is the explanation for everything because there are always things to work out and discover. So science, in my view, is not threatened by religion but they can come together and support each other - not one dominating the other as people may suggest.

This argument, generally science vs religion, always goes round in circles and nobody is going to convince anyone because we have our firm views. I can see your arguement but I feel that maybe we should question our method questioning.

It's always good to have a discussion but this won't be resolved anytime soon, even though one side feels they are 100% right.


So, in other words you're saying we should agree to disagree, I'm afraid that's one big cop out.

If science isn't threatened by religion then why are theists attempting to edit science teaching in schools and force through their beliefs?
#27
jonnyq
So science, in my view, is not threatened by religion but they can come together and support each other - not one dominating the other as people may suggest.

Unfortunately fundamentalist christians do indeed see science as a threat to their religion. Besides which religion is to science what astrology is to astronomy.

I find it bizzarre that the higher in religion you ascend the more exotic the costume you must wear like archbishops etc. What about the other peculiar things, like blessing water so its holy and you can sprinkle and make things blessed, being splashed or immersed in water makes you baptisted and you'll go to heaven, speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, eating wafers which represent flesh, drinking red wine which is blood etc. etc. The list is pretty much endless. Were it not that society in general is still pretty much brain washed by 'religion' you'd be locked up in a lunatic asylum for such behaviour normally.
#28
LOLOL

Ohhh what controversy ... mikewot don't you know that the fossil record was put on this earth to test our doubting thomases? If you disbelieve in god you burn in eternal hell ... if you disbelieve darwin ... nothing bad happens?

Come on what you gonna chose??? muhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahaa!!
#29
Gaia
LOLOL

Ohhh what controversy ... mikewot don't you know that the fossil record was put on this earth to test our doubting thomases? If you disbelieve in god you burn in eternal hell ... if you disbelieve darwin ... nothing bad happens?

Come on what you gonna chose??? muhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahaa!!

Well when its put like that Gaia.....
#30
Gaia
Ohhh what controversy ... mikewot don't you know that the fossil record was put on this earth to test our doubting thomases? If you disbelieve in god you burn in eternal hell ... if you disbelieve darwin ... nothing bad happens?

Come on what you gonna chose??? muhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahaa!!

You mean the olde carrot & stick schtick? If you're good you'll go to heaven and if you're bad you'll go to hell? Hhhmmm! Anyway I've found a video which simply proves that god does exist, I'm totally convinced now. Thankfully I don't like durian fruit, pineapples etc. Oh and if bananas were designed for man and we know monkeys love them also then doesn't that mean we might just come from the same tree branch as the apes (apart from having 96% approx same DNA)? Oh what the heck, God Did It! so why worry :)
#31
The funniest thing about that video is he's eating a cultivated banana - the very product of evolution through selective breeding! I wonder if he'd be so keen to eat a natural banana, with it's starchy taste and hard seeds. Yummy!
#32
jonnyq
I don't understand why there is a need for religious people to prove their arguement.

There is when they deliberately try to undermine science, for example by stating things like the earth is 6000 years old, there was a great flood, miracles happen, you go to heaven when you die if you're good.
This isn't a clear cut issue of fact or not.

There is, science deals in facts. For the religious no matter how much you may pray or wish something was right that doesn't make it a fact.


for evidence there are the holy books where science has proved the references - referring back to my point about the references in holy texts

Can you provide those references because I'd be very very interested to read them?

The big bang point is that however much science investigates there is a point which we cannot explain without contemplating the possibility of some power. Whether or not this is proof of god, it shows how science alone cannot explain everything. It should try to, of course, and it that serves a useful purpose but what happened when time didn't exist? There was a period where the universe was created from nothing, the gases had something behind them and what was that? What started everything - an accident?

[SIZE=2]Whoa there! Now you're conflating several diffent things here. The start of the universe with the Big bang is one thing and it can be proven:[/SIZE]





[FONT=Univers-Light][SIZE=1][LEFT][SIZE=2]Last year’s Nobel Prize was given for [/SIZE][SIZE=2]observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that has been traveling for over 14 billion years before being received by NASA’s Cosmic Background Explore Satellite. This thermal radiation bath, whose temperature is measured more accurately than any other known existing system, has a temperature that is in precise agreement with the predicted value if the Universe has been expanding for 14.3 billion years since the big bang. Moreover, the small temperature deviations observed across the sky agree exactly with what are predicted if gravity worked over the course of several billion to create all of the 400 billion observed galaxies in the universe. Moreover, observations of the primordial background radiation are in [/SIZE][SIZE=2]exact independent agreement with the predictions of a hot big bang that produced precisely the observed abundance of light elements, hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, at a time when the universe was 1 second old and had a temperature of 10 billion degrees.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Then comes abiogenesis, the start of life on earth, a different area of science which is not yet fully understood.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Then evolution:[/SIZE][/LEFT]


[FONT=Univers-Light][SIZE=1][LEFT][SIZE=2]Darwin’s remarkable realization that the diversity of life on Earth changes over time has now been tested in many different ways using many different types of science, from radiometric dating of fossils to the science of genetics. Evolution provides a remarkable framework within which the current diversity of life on earth can be understood. It is supported by every piece of data in modern biology and geology. The fossil record is replete with transitional fossils of all sorts, including a continuous record of evolution from sea to land animals, and a remarkably complete record, containing hundreds of examples of the transition of hominid species to modern humans over a period of 5 million years.[/SIZE][/LEFT]




[LEFT][SIZE=2]The age determination of different human fossils is supported by a wealth of data, including radioactive dating, geological dating, and more recently genetic dating. Modern genetics, the study of DNA as the repository of information that is the basis for reproduction of life forms, allows detailed comparisons between species to be performed. The close genetic relationship between the human genome and that of [/SIZE][SIZE=2]great apes is one of the many pieces of data that imply that they are our closest genetic cousins on earth.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Because mutation rates of various parts of the DNA sequence has been determined, one can use these as “molecular clocks” to determine how long it has taken for divergence between humans and great apes. It has been determined that the human-chimp divergence began around 4.5-5 million years ago, while the divergence between humans and gorillas (and chimps) occurred around 7 million years ago.[/SIZE]
[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
But even if religious people concede they cannot prove the existance of god - they still have faith and that is not challenged, just like athiests will not wobble from their scientific stance.

Your faith is being challenged right now, by me. Faith quite literally means belief in something without even the slightest shred of evidence.

There is scientific evidence to support evolution and there is scientific evidence to support god BUT the evidence for god is not attributed to god by athiests.

Several times you've asserted that there is scientific evidence of the existance of god. Can you please provide that evidence because a Nobel Prize awaits you. If you cannot provide the evidence then please stop with the assertions already!

Nothing happens without a reason and something which may seem pointless, always has a purpose - what that purpose is and what is behind it is debated.
Lots of things happen by chance and coincedence. You may like to read the book Innumeracy:Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences which is particularly interesting on probability.

Religion cause as much if not more division than race. Religion perpuates ignorance. Religion has adults brainwashing children to believe things which are not true. Religion gets away with things that other 'groups' would not get away with (I was particularly pleased that the government did not back down on the application of the laws concerning adoption of children by homosexuals. The churches were not allowed to continue their bigotry and prejudices).

Some quotes which say it all for me:

[SIZE=2][FONT=Trebuchet MS]Beliefs, including religious ones, are learned. Which makes atheism a normal state of affairs and religious beliefs a learned "abnormality". No psychological theory is necessary to explain the causes of a normal base state. Any psychological theory of learning, attitude change or socialisation can explain the causes of religious belief.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Trebuchet MS]Rosemary Lyndall, clinical Neuro-psychologist[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]


[SIZE=2][FONT=Trebuchet MS]God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That sir, is not free will. It would be akin to a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his imprisonment/execution. When god says the same we call him "loving" and build churches in his honor.[/FONT][/SIZE]


[SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][FONT=Trebuchet MS]….Man can contemplate his own mortality and finds the thought intolerable. Any animal will struggle to protect itself from a threat of death. Faced with a predator, it flees, hides, fights or employs some other defensive mechanism, such as death-feigning or the emission of stinking fluids. There are many self-protection mechanisms, but they all occur as a response to an immediate danger. When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot—the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of an immortal soul—a soul which is more 'him' than even his physical body is 'him.' If this soul can survive in an afterlife, then he has successfully defended himself against the threatened attack on his life. This gives the agents of the gods a powerful area of support. All they need to do is to remind their followers constantly of their mortality and to convince them that the afterlife itself is under the personal management of the particular gods they are promoting. The self-protective urges of their worshippers will do the rest.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Trebuchet MS][Desmond Morris, "Religious Displays," Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour, 1977, Abrams, New York, p. 149-51.][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]


[SIZE=2][FONT=Trebuchet MS]So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=2][COLOR=#666666]-Stephen W. Hawking ([/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=2]A Brief History of Time[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR])

[SIZE=2][FONT=Trebuchet MS]What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide on how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Trebuchet MS]Stephen W. Hawking (Der Spiegel, 1989)[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE]
#33
After reading a lot of this thread, all I can say is thank God for `cut n paste`.

:)
#34
i think everything just made its self...i dunno how but i dont believe in any religion so no chance did some power come and do it all..if he did and hes still about...why aint he done anything since? if he can magically make something out of nothing..surley hed plant a cancer cure? aids cure? anyway i dunno..i think everything is BS unless proven
#35
jonnyq
there is also the issue of why is there such a need to prove that god doesn't exist to religious people .

No need to prove he/she/it doesn't exist but a desperate need to educate people who have been religiously brainwashed into believing things which can be shown to be lies.

i meant that for religious people the scientific evidence points toward god, eg how complex the human body is etc. - but to atheists it is a sign of evolution

Ah! Yea olde 'irreducable complexity' or 'design' so beloved of creationists but proven to be nonsense.
- and back to my other point, what measures are in place to measure god and the effects?

As Steven Hawkings says, there is no need for a god. Since we have no need and since there are natural explanations for what we can see how can we determine whats supernatural?

i think we should look at the other side of the argument and not dismiss it without giving it a chance -

Yea olde creationist 'debate' and teaching the 'controversy'. Unfortunately there is no controversy in the scientific community because there is currently no other theory which stands up to scientific rigour.
#36
I've read up on pretty much every major religion out there, but it doesn't fundamentally change the fact that there is no evidence to suggest a god actually exists.

Science deals with evidence and logic. There is no evidence nor logic that a god exists. Scientific facts /cannot/ be used to support any religion, because they are contradictory in nature. If you're saying something is true with no evidence to support your claims, you're dealing with something that isn't science, isn't logical and, quite reasonably by extension, /doesn't exist/. You can't use the scientific method to prove anything faith-based, and anyone claiming otherwise is trying to appease the religious.

The only reason a god was created by people was to fill in the gaps. As time has gone on, those gaps are getting smaller and smaller, and the lack of evidence for any god has remained constant. Before we knew about the water cycle, we thought it was the rain god. Before we knew what was above the skies, we thought it was the gods. Before we knew what was underneath us, it was /hell/. It's filling in the gaps, and they've moved the goalposts as those gaps have changed and we can explain natural processes.

We understand the complexity of humans, thanks to evolution, but now it seems the solution for religious people is to put their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALA GOD IS TESTING US" or similar an deny the bleeding obvious which is sitting in front of you. Comparing evolution and creationism is a joke. Evolution has fossils and evidence, and /common sense/ behind it. Do people not believe in the fact they share traits with their parents? Do people not believe that selective breeding works? Then how can you /not/ believe in evolution? Creationism /isn't science/, and, fundamentally, if you believe it you're ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.

There aren't any real scientists who follow the scientific method and believe evolution is wrong. They fundamentally don't exist, and anyone who thinks that creationism is a "real alternative" deserves all the derision they get - there's no evidence for it, aside from age-old fairy-tales, which you fundamentally can't believe because /people lie and exaggerate/.

Where's the evidence for any god? Or does the lack of evidence for an alternative theory to the creation of the world means that the obvious "solution" is an omnipotent being for which there is no evidence? It's why the flying speghetti monter was thought up, because it fundamentally /makes no sense/ to say that just because you don't know something, you should make up an omnipotent being beyond all human recognition to explain it. Why answer anything, because "god did it"?. It's a cop-out, a catch-all because there isn't a better solution, so you've created this wonderful devine deity that exists despite any obvious reasoning.

I think we /should look at both sides of the argument, and realise that one is based on cold hard facts and what we see in front of us, and the other is based on superstition, tall tales and everything /but/ solid evidence. I /have/ given it a chance, growing up in a Christian school and seemingly having religious people bending my ear every two minutes, but it doesn't change the end result. And why shouldn't atheists speak up, when every other religion has dominated the world for thousands of years based on nothing but tales of others? There's a real alternative, based on logic and what you see, something which none of the major religions can't compete with.

Oh, and the reason Hawking says that it doesn't matter what happened before the Big Bang is because it's impossible to know, and as such, it's irrelevent and you're back to superstition and philosophical arguments which you could debate forever and still never be right. You're back to "rain gods" just because you don't have the ability to understand something, which is a step backwards from all that we have acheieved a civilisation.
[mod]#37
Is it just me that finds it quite implausible that an explosion could create something ... anything, nevermind the world we live in?
#38
millarcat
Is it just me that finds it quite implausible that an explosion could create something ... anything, nevermind the world we live in?

could be possible on Lost lol
[admin]#39
I'll add my bit in :)

I think the reason that this kind of debate always gets so heated is because the fundamental principles on which each side are arguing are actually so remote that they can not engage in dialogue. Religious arguments cannot enter into scientific debate just as science cannot enter into a theological argument. We're talking about two fundamentally different things.

The friction occurs when religion tries to edge in on science (as with creationism) or when science tries to edge in on religion (bothering to bother itself with issues like there is no "God"). Personally I think each area needs to stay out of the other. Religious texts don't make good scientific treatises - that doesn't invalidate them - that doesn't say they can't contain truth - it just means that they are not fundamentally not concerned with the scientific issues. Religious texts struggle with ideas of who we are and why we are here in a way that is entirely removed from empirical evidence or concern. Scientific hypotheses work on defined principles to explain our reality in ways that we can tabulate and test - they don't make good religious texts - that doesn't mean they don't contain truth - that doesn't invalidate them - it just means they are not concerned with things that cannot be measured/tested/observed.

So really religion and science don't talk with each other. Science and religion are two different languages with no interpreter, they can talk about each other but cannot talk with each other.

Our culture right now believes that a scientific education is the best education we can give and that philosophically we are best able to understand our reality through scientific means - to me that means religion shouldn't be trying to talk with science in our education system. I am not bothered by what people believe and I am not able to state that a scientific/empirical method of determining reality is fundamentally more truthful than a religious explanation, however I can say that if we have decided as a society to determine ourselves through science that religious explanations should stay out.

And on the flip side I would really rather prefer that scientist kept their noses out of religion. Bringing scientific arguments to religious beliefs is a no-contest situation - however it doesn't invalidate it. The mistake some religions make is that they try to argue with science...

Personally I find someone like Dawkins to be a smug rationalist who gloats over a fight which his opponent can't win and doesn't need to. The sad thing is that the religious keep taking the bait only to be pummeled.

To pick one point out of the blue here - I would also like to say that the common dismissal of religion as causing so much pain/war/horror is simply naive and places far too much blame on religion rather than ourselves as humans. Religion has caused horror, bloodshed and war but it has also inspired some of our best literature, art, music and such things which we would consider notable pure achievements. And what that we have as humans has not resulted in equal horror and beauty? What horrible things have been done in the name of love? Should we remove our capacity to love because of the deeds it may propel us towards? In the core of humanity is this ability to fight and love and kill and nurture - whether we are an atheist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim we are guilty of being human (actually this is what most religions are trying to understand - and I would say social sciences also).

I would also say that the utopian vision lives far more strongly in religious belief than in scientific belief. If one believes that humans are on the path to some possible utopia our chance of reaching it does not lie in a brutal evolutionary cycle - that only promises more war, famine, death in the pursuit of what only our biological make-up compels us to do.

So in a way I am both a pessimist and an optimist. On one hand I am optimistic that religion and science could stand back from each other and let each go on their merry way - and on the other all I see on either path is the same circles of history repeating...so I'm not sure it makes any difference in the end.
#40
jonnyq
there is also the issue of why is there such a need to prove that god doesn't exist to religious people - you won't convince them.

It is an issue when some religious people seek to impose their opinions/views on the rest of us.

i meant the big bang actually occured but how is it explained, the beginning, what started the process - i didn't mean the theory was false.

You seem confused about the big bang theory and rightly so, it is perplexing to everyone who comes across it. After persevering to understand it, I realise that this event, which we call the big bang, was the point at which space-time, the universe and the laws of physics came into existence. Therefore it is meaningless to speak of time or space (when or where) before that point, it is just like asking what's north of north, or what's the volume of a straight line, or how many eyes does a lump of rock have, the concept of time outside of the universe doesn't make sense.

the idea of scientific evidence for god - i meant that for religious people the scientific evidence points toward god, eg how complex the human body is etc. - but to atheists it is a sign of evolution - and back to my other point, what measures are in place to measure god and the effects?

Some religious people attempt to peddle lies as scientific facts, they distort science in order to fool people into thinking it supports certain facets of religion. This is simply unacceptable. I have yet to come across reliable scientific evidence for creationism, I have given you plenty of examples which provide evidence for evolution though.

there are scientists, not a huge number, who feel that some ideas like evolution are wrong and can consider the idea of a power without changing the way they work, it just opens up another possibility or althernative - they are not religious but can still question these established ideas

There are scientists who believe that their wives are faithful to them, or that their friends aren't lying to them, even if they are being lied to. They are not infallible, they are people and people make mistakes. What is relevant is the scientific method, which is an extremely powerful way of finding out the actual truth and not opinion (which is what you seem to label as truth).

i think we should look at the other side of the argument and not dismiss it without giving it a chance - i would just be repeating some of my points if i explain again


I think we should dismiss teaching something as science if it isn't science. Just like I would oppose teaching football tactics in a french class.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!